NRISINGHA PROSAD CHATTERJI Vs. GIRINDRA NATH MUKERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are appeals from a joint judgment of the Additional Judge of Nadia, allowing an appeal from a judgment of the Munsif at Krishnagar and dismissing two cross-appeals from the same Munsif in a connected case.

(2.) In both disputes which were quarrels between neighbours in relation to a boundary, an injunction and damages were sought. In the first case which the Munsif dismissed, the relief claimed was found on an alleged covenant running with the land or in the alternative, and by way of an after-thought we think, upon an easement of necessity. In the second suit ho partly granted the relief asked for which eras based upon a complaint of conduct amounting to trespass and nuisance, and gave a small award in damages. It is to be noted that the two protagonists to this litigation are prominent local Pleaders. The whole of this litigation seems to have been permeated with sustained malice and it was of so protracted a nature (every conceivable issue relevant or otherwise being raised) that it produced condition of almost incredible verbosity in both the judgments of the lower Courts. We do not propose to follow this example. We are satisfied that the Judge of the lower Appellate Court was right in disallowing the second appeal before him but we are not satisfied that he was justified in allowing the appeal in the suit concerned with the alleged easement or covenant running with the lands.

(3.) Without setting out the evidence again we are convinced that there was not an easement of necessity or any easement at all. The circumstances in no way warranted the establishment of such a servitude which can only arise under conditions quite dissimilar to those which prevail here.